I beg to move amendment No.751, in

clause 250, page 137, line 21, at end insert—

'( ) sections 35 and 40 of the Crime (Sentences) Act 1997 (fine defaulters),'.

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

Government amendments Nos. 778, 780, 786, 787, 752 to 754, 815, 826 and 838.

Government new clause 19—Power to impose unpaid work requirement or curfew requirement on fine defaulter.

Government new clause 20—Fine defaulters: driving disqualification.

Government new schedule 2—Default orders: modification of provisions relating to community orders.

New clauses 19 and 20 and new schedule 2 re-enact, with appropriate modifications for the new framework, the provisions for fine defaulters that are contained in the Crime (Sentences) Act 1997. Amendment No. 838 repeals the existing provisions in the 1997 Act. Amendments Nos. 751 to 754, 778, 780, 786, 787, 815 and 826 are consequential amendments that result from that re-enactment.

We can make rapid progress through much of chapter 8. I do not wish to query the technical amendments, but I hope that the new clauses will not be the final word on what the Government feel they may be able to do to provide new ways to enforce fines. The hon. Member for Rayleigh (Mr. Francois) made a sensible suggestion earlier in the proceedings. I do not think that he made it totally in the context of Essex, as his suggestion applies elsewhere in the country, and I hope that it will be considered.

Has the Minister also considered whether there is scope to impound vehicles under Government new clause 20? I do not mean forfeiture of vehicles, because

that would get us into areas of disproportionality, which are some of the problems that Her Majesty's Customs and Excise experiences when it takes cars that it suspects of having been used to bring in goods that are slightly over the legal limit. We are in the curious position that a car can be impounded if it is parked on a double yellow line and is not moved within the requisite time, but if it is moved within the requisite time but has an unpaid penalty ticket that becomes an unpaid fine, it cannot be impounded. A possible effective deterrent to somebody who defaults on traffic fines would be to impound his car.

The hon. Gentleman is making an important point. It seemed to me that his anxiety about the forfeiture under the Customs and Excise Management Act 1979 is not an analogy that one need worry about too much. The whole problem with that was that it was confiscation by administrative diktat. However, if somebody has a fine outstanding, I see no reason why the vehicle should not be seized and sold to cover that fine. Indeed, that might be an extremely effective way to ensure that payments are made.

I am most grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his support.

I was refreshing my memory from a previous discussion, but the proposal by the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome is such a good idea that, among the measures that the Government propose to pilot to improve fine enforcement, is that a clamped vehicle could be sold if the fine is not paid. Therefore I accept his argument entirely.

I am most grateful to the Minister. The problem with clamping, however, is that the vehicle is kept in what may be an inappropriate place. It should be taken to the car pound. That is just a technical point. The measure is helpful, and we shall see whether it has the desired effect.

I wish to make a point about new schedule 2. Paragraph 5 gives the Secretary of State

''Power to alter numbers of hours or days''.

I am not querying the Secretary of State's power to do that by order. I am simply making an inquiry. There is provision to alter the number of hours or days specified, but not to alter the amount; in other words, to change the bands to coincide with current rates. I wonder whether that is helpful or whether the Minister might like the power to amend both sides of the table. Otherwise, the bands are fossilised at current monetary values, which seems to be an unnecessary restriction on the powers of the Secretary of State. I do not often argue for greater powers for the Secretary of State, but it seems curious that the new schedule is expressed in that way.

On that last point, I must confess that I am not entirely sure what arrangements are made elsewhere in legislation for dealing with the question that the hon. Gentleman sensibly raises about the changing real value of specified penalties. May I reflect on that and get back to him?

Amendment agreed to.

Clause 250, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.